Friday, June 26, 2015

A wider tent

Mah tovu ohalekha ya’akov mishk’notekha yisrael
How lovely are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling-places, O Israel!

Jewish daily morning prayer opens with these words that transformed the prophet-for-hire Balaam’s intent to curse the Israelites into an eternal blessing for the people. Recognizing and affirming the beauty and sanctity of the community and all its members is a standard we have strived to achieve throughout the generations. It takes compassion, generosity of the spirit and a true concern for our fellow human to overcome those obstacles – racism, misogyny, bias of all types – that have diminished some in the eyes of others.
This morning, we were woken to the news that the Supreme Court, ruling regarding same sex marriage, had relied upon upholding the 14th Amendment (which asserts equal protection under the law) to safeguard marriage equality. In closing the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote these words, which are already receiving much-due attention for their content and eloquence:
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
In recent memory I don’t think read a more “Jewish” plea for social justice and civil rights than these words today. Yes, ours remains a culture that is challenged by a range of social ills from poverty and homelessness to inequality of pay. Today’s decision by the Supreme Court renews hope that our society still has what it takes to mend the world’s brokenness, and that the “American dream” is within reach of all.
 

Mah tovu – today our tent got a little wider, and a little more beautiful.

Friday, June 19, 2015

Nuances of rebellion

This week’s Torah portion, Korach, is customarily seen to illustrate a paradigmatic example of rebellion against authority. In it, Korach and his followers apparently rise up against Moses’ leadership, and question his right to lead the people. At the outset they suggest that Moses is no more suited to hold that station than anyone else in the community, as all of them are holy, and God is among them (emphasis mine). Throughout the ages there have been discussions of this incident: Korach’s jealousy of his cousin Moses; whether Korach’s perspective is worth consideration; how to squelch such tumult; Moses’ response(s); and so on…one’s understanding of these issues is based upon the idea that Korach and his followers present themselves in a defiant stance. Is it possible that the text offers different possibilities? Of course, if we but explore the wording itself, paying particular attention to the verbs in use.
In the standard JPS translation (among the most widely used Jewish versions) we read:
Now Korah, son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, betook himself, along with Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth – descendants of Reuben – to rise up against Moses, together with two hundred fifty representatives of the Israelites…
Here, the main protagonist is clearly Korach, who takes himself (and the others along the way) in order to challenge Moses. This wording opens a chapter of rebellion. We find a difference in both focus and intent in the classic Soncino Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. JH Hertz – likely the leading English language Torah used for the majority of the 20th century:
Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; and they rose up in the face of Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty men…
In this version Korach is not entirely singled out in the leading role; he and the other named character “take men” (as opposed to betook himself”) in order to present themselves unto Moses. Perhaps, as they make their case, it is to relieve Moses of the overwhelming burden of managing the Israelites – just as his father-in-law Jethro had done immediately prior to receiving the Ten Commandments. A thought to ponder.
Robert Alter, in his masterful The Five Books of Moses, offers another possibility, retaining the ambiguity of the original Hebrew:
And Korah son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab and On son of Peleth sons of Reuben, took up, and they rose before Moses, and two hundred fifty men of the Israelites…and they assembled against Moses…
In his commentary, Alter notes that “took up” is vague at best; the common completion of the phrase, “took up men,” is merely *understood* – whereas it can also easily be read to mean that he (indicating Korach, as Alter points out that the verb is singular, referring mainly to him) “took it upon himself” or “steeled himself up” and therefore “rebelled.”
Finally I would include the rendition offered by Everett Fox in his groundbreaking Five Books of Moses (yes, we aren’t that innovative when it comes to titles). His work is fascinating because of his very particular attention to idiom, and the preservation of Hebrew words and phrases in the text for their specific merit/meaning. Fox advances:
Now there betook himself Korah son of Yitzhar son of Kehat son of Levi, and Dathan and Aviram the sons of Eliav and On son of Pelet the sons of Reuven – to rise up before Moshe with men-of-stature from the Children of Israel, 250, leaders of the community…
Again in this instance, Fox’s account – while suggesting that Korach’s own plan to confront Moses is his alone – allows for the possibility that the entire episode is not necessarily rebellious in nature from the outset. This gathering of men of stature could be viewed as a demonstration of the importance of what they had to say to Moses – perhaps insubordinate indeed and yet maybe something else – which remains important to consider.
So this is often true for the situations we meet, when we are faced by others. If we jump to conclusions about their intentions from the outset, without (patiently) weighing additional possibilities, the only expected outcome can be devastating conflict – usually difficult to overcome. Yet not every encounter needs to be a challenge, not every interaction a trial. We have it within us to express greater measures of compassion, kindness and generosity toward one another – which might yet mend the world.


Friday, June 5, 2015

More than enough

True contentment is an elusive feat for us to achieve. Shouldn’t it be enough to have a loving family, a safe roof over our heads, and the opportunity to wake up every day and do something of worth and value with my life? The answer is – certainly. However, it’s hard to keep these things in mind all the time. It can be easy to fall back on thinking about those issues of dissatisfaction or incompleteness. We all struggle with overcoming this notion of emptiness. The ancient Rabbis offered timeless wisdom. They taught us, “Who is rich? [It is] the person who is content with what he [or she] has” (Pirkei Avot 4:1). When we remember this simple formula, when we overcome our penchant to be *miton’nim*, “complainers,” we too can be content with our lot.


Wishing a Shabbat of contentment, and peace...